Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 925 — Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572r (2026)

Product liability claims against third parties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 52-572r is repealed, effective July 1, 1993.

(P.A. 79-483, S. 11; 79-631, S. 108, 111; P.A. 82-160, S. 245; P.A. 93-228, S. 34, 35.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Secs. 52-572s to 52-572v. Reserved for future use.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1984–2002 · leading case: Ferryman v. City of Groton, 561 A.2d 432 (Conn. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ferryman v. City of Groton, 561 A.2d 432 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-572r (d) provides: “In any product liability claim for personal injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment .”
Nicholson v. United Tech. Corp., 697 F. Supp. 598 (D. Conn. 1988). · cites it 6× “Applicability of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-572r UTC argues that it is entitled to set off any compensation received by plaintiff under the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act (“FECA”), 5 U.”
Sivilla v. Philips Med. Sys. of North Am., Inc., 700 A.2d 1179 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 5× “to 1993) § 52-572r (c) precluded the cause of action by St.”
Rodia v. Tesco Corp., 527 A.2d 721 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 4× “The plaintiffs and the defendants argue that Flagg is precluded from intervening in this action by the clear language of General Statutes § 52-572r (c). That statute provides in relevant part that “[njeither an employer nor .”
Malerba v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 554 A.2d 287 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 2× “Further, General Statutes § 52-572r (d) provides: “In any product liability claim for personal injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment subject to the provisions of sections 52-240a, 52-240b, 52-572m to 52-572r, inclusive, and 52-577a, brought against any…”
Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg., Inc., 627 A.2d 1288 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 52-572r provides: “product liability claims against third parties, (a) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes to the contrary, in any product liability claim against a third party this section shall govern the rights of the employee, or in the…”
Durniak v. August Winter & Sons, Inc., 610 A.2d 1277 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 52-572r (c). Absent such express legislative intervention, we have held that we should not assume that the legislature intended to create an exception for aggravated torts; Mingachos v.”
Lamontagne v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 834 F. Supp. 576 (D. Conn. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 52-572n(c) regarding claims for recovery of commercial loss between commercial parties; and Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572r regarding product liability claims against third parties such as employers.”
Faiz v. Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc., 481 A.2d 113 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1984). · cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 52-572r (c) which states that “an employer .”
Bakker v. Brave Indus., Inc., 829 A.2d 928 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “The defendant contended that a statute, namely, General Statutes § 52-572r (d), which was repealed prior to the court’s decision, prohibited all indemnification claims in a product liability action against any person immune from liability.”
Ulvedal v. Heidelberg E., Inc., 764 F. Supp. 259 (D. Conn. 1991). · cites it 2× “Defendants are now moving for certification on the question of whether Conn.Gen. Stat. § 52-572r(c) bars the intervention of an employer in a products liability action.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572r(b) — 1 case
Nicholson v. United Tech. Corp., 697 F. Supp. 598 (D. Conn. 1988). “Applicability of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-572r UTC argues that it is entitled to set off any compensation received by plaintiff under the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act (“FECA”), 5 U.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572r(c) — 1 case
Ulvedal v. Heidelberg E., Inc., 764 F. Supp. 259 (D. Conn. 1991). “Defendants are now moving for certification on the question of whether Conn.Gen. Stat. § 52-572r(c) bars the intervention of an employer in a products liability action.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.